MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108497666 · doi:10.1111/vox.12316

The relative efficacy of telephone and email reminders to elicit blood donation

2015· article· en· W2108497666 on OpenAlexaff
Marc Germain, Gaston Godin

Bibliographic record

VenueVox Sanguinis · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBlood donation and transfusion practices
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalHéma-Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhoneMedicineDonationBlood donationsPhone callBlood donorRandomized controlled trialTelephone numberFamily medicineInternal medicineImmunologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the study was to test the relative efficacy of telephone and email reminders to trigger blood donation. A sample of 3454 donors was randomized to one of three conditions: phone only (n = 1176), email only (n = 1091) and phone + email (n = 1187). There was a higher proportion of donors who registered to give blood in the phone + email condition (18·45%) compared to the other two conditions (phone: 15·73%, P < 0·05; email: 13·20%; P < 0·001); this effect was apparent only in men. The phone and email conditions did not differ significantly (P = 0·16), suggesting equivalent efficacy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.756
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVox SanguinisSame topicBlood donation and transfusion practicesFrench-language works237,207